Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

Corporate Greed and the Death of Innovation in the FPS Market

Connor Banks
Dec 4, 2024
4 min read

The first-person shooter (FPS) genre, once the bastion of innovation and creativity, has become a victim of the relentless grind of corporate greed. This is a tale of how the AAA gaming industry’s obsession with shareholder returns and live-service monetization models has stifled innovation, alienated players, and left us with a genre that feels more like a repetitive cash grab than the thrilling experience it once was.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

The FPS genre is suffering, and the evidence is damning. Take Battlefield 2042. Billed as a grand reinvention of the franchise, it launched as a buggy, half-finished product with baffling design decisions that alienated its core fanbase. It haemorrhaged players within weeks, dropping to fewer than 1,000 concurrent users on Steam within months—a far cry from the franchise’s glory days.

Similarly, Ubisoft’s XDefiant, heralded as a “Call of Duty killer,” hit the scene with initial enthusiasm, drawing millions of players in its first few weeks. Yet, by August 2024, it struggled to keep even 20,000 players engaged. These figures pale in comparison to established juggernauts like Fortnite, Call of Duty: Warzone, and Apex Legends, which continue to dominate the scene with player counts in the millions. The message from players is clear: stop giving us half-baked, copy-paste experiences, and start respecting our time and money.

The Roots of the Problem

At the heart of this crisis lies the AAA industry’s insatiable hunger for profit. Developers are no longer allowed the time or resources to craft innovative, polished games that push the boundaries of the genre. Instead, they’re saddled with the demand to churn out annualised sequels and “live-service” experiences designed not to entertain but to extract maximum revenue through microtransactions, battle passes, and endless cosmetic content.

Consider Call of Duty, a franchise that once set the standard for FPS games. In recent years, it has become the poster child for this approach. While Warzone remains a popular battle royale, its yearly instalments feel increasingly like re-skins of their predecessors, designed to hit sales quotas rather than advance the series. Meanwhile, Fortnite, a game that fundamentally reshaped the genre with its dynamic live events and constant innovation, shows what can happen when developers are allowed to take risks.

The Live-Service Trap

The rise of the live-service model is perhaps the clearest example of how corporate greed has warped the industry. In theory, live-service games should keep players engaged by offering regular updates and fresh content. In practice, they’ve become little more than vehicles for predatory monetization. Why bother crafting a compelling single-player campaign or innovative multiplayer mode when you can slap together a loot box system and call it a day?

This model isn’t just bad for players; it’s bad for games. When publishers prioritise short-term revenue over long-term quality, the result is a glut of underwhelming releases that fail to stand the test of time. Games like Battlefield 2042 and Halo Infinite launched with massive marketing budgets and plenty of hype, only to see their player bases evaporate as soon as the novelty wore off.

Where Are the Risks?

It wasn’t always this way. In the early 2000s, FPS games were defined by innovation. Half-Life set the gold standard for narrative-driven shooters. Halo: Combat Evolved revolutionised console gaming with its intuitive controls and sprawling sci-fi epic. Even Call of Duty started as a bold reimagining of the war shooter, focusing on cinematic realism and squad-based combat.

Today, that spirit of risk-taking has been replaced by formulaic design and safe, uninspired gameplay. Where are the ambitious single-player campaigns? Where are the genre-defining mechanics? Why are indie titles like outshining the multimillion-dollar behemoths of the industry?

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this story is how players have responded. The success of games like Fortnite and Apex Legends, as well as the enduring popularity of classics like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (now reborn as CS2), shows that players are willing to stick with games that deliver consistent quality and genuine innovation. Meanwhile, the rapid decline in player counts for recent AAA releases demonstrates that gamers are no longer willing to tolerate mediocrity.

It’s a stark rebuke to the corporate executives who see games not as art or entertainment but as products to be milked dry. Players have voted with their wallets and their time, and the message is clear: respect us, or we’ll take our business elsewhere.

A Way Forward

The solution to this crisis is simple, yet seemingly unattainable in the current corporate climate: put players first. Allow developers the time and creative freedom to craft experiences that truly innovate. Abandon the obsession with live-service monetization and focus on delivering games that are complete, polished, and engaging at launch.

The FPS genre doesn’t have to be a victim of corporate greed. It can once again become a space for bold ideas, thrilling gameplay, and unforgettable experiences. But to do so, the industry must break free from the shackles of its profit-first mindset. Until then, players will continue to flock to the few games that get it right, leaving the rest to wither in the shadow of their own mediocrity.

The choice is clear. Innovate or die. For the sake of the FPS genre, and gaming as a whole, let’s hope the industry chooses wisely.